#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[New Mivango]

All of this still fails to address one of the true root causes of the sexual harassment litigation madness: prudishness. If we stopped teaching people from a young age that sex was dirty and should only be engaged in during relationships, society would be far more easygoing about sexual innuendo, risque humor, etc. Prudishness needs to be weeded out, root and stem, lest we continue to have an only slightly more liberal brand of Puritans (they might accept LGBTQ, for instance, but God forbid you have an extramarital affair!).

If I ran society, a public awareness "anti-morality" campaign would be in full swing, working hard at taking a wrecking ball to lingering traces of Christian morality.

[Pal Lundelackcodan]

lol they played themselves.

[Napkiraly]

All of this still fails to address one of the true root causes of the sexual harassment litigation madness: prudishness. If we stopped teaching people from a young age that sex was dirty and should only be engaged in during relationships, society would be far more easygoing about sexual innuendo, risque humor, etc. Prudishness needs to be weeded out, root and stem, lest we continue to have an only slightly more liberal brand of Puritans (they might accept LGBTQ, for instance, but God forbid you have an extramarital affair!).

Extramarital affairs are bad, so I mean yeah that should be something that isn't accepted.

[Galloism]

Did the lot of you collectively decide that a sizeable portion of all women are deceitful vipers out to ruin you?

Here's an interesting question. What is sizeable? What percentage has to exist for there be a risk?

Let's say it's 0.1%. One woman out of a thousand.

I deal with 800-1000 women in an average year, and 600-800 men. My profession is somewhat lopsided female. Our industry also has high turnover, so you can say 300-400 women a year will be unique every year. My risk the first year is between 80-100% (but never truly a hundred, because statistics don't work that way), with each subsequent year of encountering such a new risk of 30-40%. Is that a sizeable risk?

What if it's 0.01%? One out of ten thousand.

Well, that's 8-10% the first year, with 3-4% every subsequent year after. Statistics don't easily sum, but in a forty year career, that's a substantially high risk.

What if it's 0.001%? One out of a hundred thousand. Now we're saying there's only 3000 in all of the United States of America.

Now you're talking about 0.8-1.0% for the first year, and 0.3-0.4% each subsequent year. If my risk of a car accident going to the grocery store today was 1%, I wouldn't go.

[Napkiraly]

Why point out only English speaking guys? Sounds awfully bigoted and prejudiced.

Because, anecdotally speaking, I've only seen the same attitude in a very small and specific subset of Spanish-speaking men. Namely, middle-aged to boomer-aged chauvinists whose concern is transparently due to them finding their own past behavior questionable in hindsight. Whereas it looks to me (again, anecdotally) like English-speaking men's concerns over #MeToo "going too far" aren't limited to a narrow demographic.

Probably because it's the English speaking world that is bearing the full brunt of it.

[Senkaku]

Why point out only English speaking guys? Sounds awfully bigoted and prejudiced.

Because, anecdotally speaking, I've only seen the same attitude in a very small and specific subset of Spanish-speaking men. Namely, middle-aged to boomer-aged chauvinists whose concern is transparently due to them finding their own past behavior questionable in hindsight. Whereas it looks to me (again, anecdotally) like English-speaking men's concerns over #MeToo "going too far" aren't limited to a narrow demographic.

I mean, Spanish-speaking men also kinda created the term "machismo", so let's not give them too many props for being so woke.

[New Mivango]

All of this still fails to address one of the true root causes of the sexual harassment litigation madness: prudishness. If we stopped teaching people from a young age that sex was dirty and should only be engaged in during relationships, society would be far more easygoing about sexual innuendo, risque humor, etc. Prudishness needs to be weeded out, root and stem, lest we continue to have an only slightly more liberal brand of Puritans (they might accept LGBTQ, for instance, but God forbid you have an extramarital affair!).

Extramarital affairs are bad, so I mean yeah that should be something that isn't accepted.

See, this is Exhibit A of what needs to be eradicated from the root and stem. This very mentality.

[New Mivango]

Because, anecdotally speaking, I've only seen the same attitude in a very small and specific subset of Spanish-speaking men. Namely, middle-aged to boomer-aged chauvinists whose concern is transparently due to them finding their own past behavior questionable in hindsight. Whereas it looks to me (again, anecdotally) like English-speaking men's concerns over #MeToo "going too far" aren't limited to a narrow demographic.

I mean, Spanish-speaking men also kinda created the term "machismo", so let's not give them too many props for being so woke.

Don't knock machismo. It has a lot going for it, at least in my view.

[Napkiraly]

Extramarital affairs are bad, so I mean yeah that should be something that isn't accepted.

See, this is Exhibit A of what needs to be eradicated from the root and stem. This very mentality.

Lmao what mentality? That you don't want your partner fucking other people?

[New haven america]

Why point out only English speaking guys? Sounds awfully bigoted and prejudiced.

Because, anecdotally speaking, I've only seen the same attitude in a very small and specific subset of Spanish-speaking men. Namely, middle-aged to boomer-aged chauvinists whose concern is transparently due to them finding their own past behavior questionable in hindsight. Whereas it looks to me (again, anecdotally) like English-speaking men's concerns over #MeToo "going too far" aren't limited to a narrow demographic.

Didn't machismo originate in Spanish speaking countries?

[New Mivango]

See, this is Exhibit A of what needs to be eradicated from the root and stem. This very mentality.

Lmao what mentality? That you don't want your partner fucking other people?

Monogamy is a social experiment best abandoned and left to the 19th and 20th centuries where it failed miserably.

[Galloism]

Well, keep in mind, that every time there's a mass scandal of some kind, opportunists who lie join in on the coattails of it.

With Kavanaugh, there was Swetnick, who has now been referred for federal charges for making false statements. Hell, with Weinstein, Ms Evans attempted to recruit another woman to lie to police about having told her about the alleged rape, but the woman instead told police that Evans confided in her that she had never been raped and wanted her to perjure herself to support her testimony. With Argento, she accused the boy she statutorily raped of rape to try and deflect her blame.

Every story comes with a hanger-on of someone making shit up.

I couldn't tell you what the statistics are in public cases like this, nor false accusations in a noncriminal context (IE, employment), but when every story comes with one or more hanger-ons that are proven, to a clear and convincing evidence standard, of intentionally lying in order to harm the man, what are men to think?

I'd think that the reasonable thought in the face of all that wouldn't be "avoid socializing with the entire female gender", much in the same way my reaction to straight male homophobia isn't "avoid socializing with the entirety of straight men".

I'd agree with you. But when they start talking about never being put in a position where they can be compromised - not by acting poorly, but by having no defense in a private situation -, by inviting more than one person, leaving the door open, recording meetings, and things of that nature, can you really blame them for minimizing their risk?

I wear a seatbelt to minimize my risk, because I have a respect for the laws of physics and the results of accidents. This is true even though I am a careful driver. This would be true if I was running across the Bonneville Salt Flats without a single other driver within miles.

And here's the thing: you can't logic people out of a belief they didn't logic themselves into. You can't start quoting statistics at people who see examples on TV all the time of exactly what they fear. It just won't work.

[New haven america]

See, this is Exhibit A of what needs to be eradicated from the root and stem. This very mentality.

Lmao what mentality? That you don't want your partner fucking other people?

I mean, humans aren't fully monogamous and never have been, so for some people a problem could be that their partners aren't fucking other people.

[Napkiraly]

Lmao what mentality? That you don't want your partner fucking other people?

Monogamy is a social experiment best abandoned and left to the 19th and 20th centuries where it failed miserably.

"Failed miserably"
Also monogamy predates both the 19th centuries and the 20th centuries by a considerable amount of time.

[Napkiraly]

Lmao what mentality? That you don't want your partner fucking other people?

I mean, humans aren't fully monogamous

*Some aren't

And I'm okay with oppressing adulterers and polyamorists.

[New Mivango]

I'm pushing a very Nietzschean worldview here, of course. Advocating a kind of social reconstruction that would make #MeToo largely moot. At least that's my take here. The trouble is that many feminists are very prudish, too, and have simply dropped the patriarchal social conservatism in favor of a matriarchal form of it.

[New Mivango]

I mean, humans aren't fully monogamous

*Some aren't

And I'm okay with oppressing adulterers and polyamorists.

I'm okay with stamping out those who would oppress me.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I mean, humans aren't fully monogamous

*Some aren't

And I'm okay with oppressing adulterers and polyamorists.

Just because humans are much more predisposed to monogamy, it doesn't mean we have to persecute those who aren't.

Live and let live, goddamnit.

[Napkiraly]

*Some aren't

And I'm okay with oppressing adulterers and polyamorists.

Just because humans are much more predisposed to monogamy, it doesn't mean we have to persecute those who aren't.

Live and let live, goddamnit.

Live and let live is a terrible basis for a moral system. It is prone to decay and then eventually catastrophic dissolution. All systems are based upon moral systems that need to be upheld which inevitably requires the willing utilization of oppression in order to maintain it. Be it social, monetary, or even legal oppression.

[Costa Fierro]

...okay, what the fuck's going on with English-speaking straight dudes?

Absolutely nothing. If he doesn't think it's worth the risk, then it's not worth the risk.

I have a bunch of female friends and acquaintances, most of them straight, and I am not the least bit worried about being accused of improper behavior in private.

You're not trying to get into their pants. There's a difference between dating women and being friends with them.

So... what the fuck? Did the lot of you collectively decide that a sizeable portion of all women are deceitful vipers out to ruin you?

No, some of us think the risks involved isn't worth the reward, especially when you consider what happened to Aziz Ansari.

I know it's a bit naïve to assume everyone you meet is a good, honest person, but this phenomenon of English-speaking men increasingly being paranoid around women looks, from an outsider's perspective, like it borders on mass delusion and it kind of smells like a sort of weird misogyny.

It's not mass delusion. More and more men are seeing what can and does happen in dating, in relationships, and in marriage, and they want absolutely nothing to do with it.

[New Mivango]

Monogamy as a social value wasn't widely adopted until after the French Revolution and the Empire/Regency period. It wasn't by any means uncommon for kings to have mistresses, people didn't marry for love, but for practical reasons, and even in puritanical America, Franklin was writing pamphlets on taking mistresses.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Just because humans are much more predisposed to monogamy, it doesn't mean we have to persecute those who aren't.

Live and let live, goddamnit.

Live and let live is a terrible basis for a moral system. It is prone to decay and then eventually catastrophic dissolution. All systems are based upon moral systems that need to be upheld which inevitably requires the willing utilization of oppression in order to maintain it. Be it social, monetary, or even legal oppression.

You forgot the word "degenerate" in that little buzzword-filled rant of yours, my friend.

[New Mivango]

Just because humans are much more predisposed to monogamy, it doesn't mean we have to persecute those who aren't.

Live and let live, goddamnit.

Live and let live is a terrible basis for a moral system. It is prone to decay and then eventually catastrophic dissolution. All systems are based upon moral systems that need to be upheld which inevitably requires the willing utilization of oppression in order to maintain it. Be it social, monetary, or even legal oppression.

Pet theories aside, there is no real basis to believe that dropping the Christian moral ethic is in any way calamitous. In fact, one could argue that Christianity and its slave morality helped wreck the Roman Empire.

[Galloism]

Live and let live is a terrible basis for a moral system. It is prone to decay and then eventually catastrophic dissolution. All systems are based upon moral systems that need to be upheld which inevitably requires the willing utilization of oppression in order to maintain it. Be it social, monetary, or even legal oppression.

Pet theories aside, there is no real basis to believe that dropping the Christian moral ethic is in any way calamitous. In fact, one could argue that Christianity and its slave morality helped wreck the Roman Empire.

To be honest, that probably had a lot more to do with lead poisoning.

[Napkiraly]

Live and let live is a terrible basis for a moral system. It is prone to decay and then eventually catastrophic dissolution. All systems are based upon moral systems that need to be upheld which inevitably requires the willing utilization of oppression in order to maintain it. Be it social, monetary, or even legal oppression.

You forgot the word "degenerate" in that little buzzword-filled rant of yours, my friend.

That wasn't a rant nor was it filled with buzzwords.